Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

[The Disciple John]

John,

E. C. Colwell completed his doctor’s dissertation on “The Character of the Greek of John’s Gospel” in 1931. His intensive research into the grammar of John’s Gospel led to the discovery of his rule.
p 257 257

In 1933 he published an article entitled, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” in JBL 52 (1933) 12-21. Ever since, his rule has been known simply as “Colwell’s rule.”

2. Statement of the Rule

Colwell’s rule is as follows: “Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .” (source)

Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (pp. 256–257). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

Thank you.
You didn't point out where I went wrong in what I said.
Also, you didn't respond to my question.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thanks Bread, lets delve into it. Your version calls the Word God, the NWT renders it a god. Which is correct. If you will notice your version inconsistently translated theos a god at Acts 28:6, which was rendered correctely, so that means they deliberately altered one of them. Your version as well tried to remove Jehovah's name as well from their version, but were unable to do so. Take notice of the first God in Jn 1:1 it was correctly capitalized, why? Because it was preceeded by the definite article tov straightforwardly translated "the Word was toward the God. The Word was capitalized because it was preceeded by the definite article ho, however the theos the verse finished with did not have any definite articles preceeding it, therefore it would be rendered with a small g. The New World Translation added the a, as did your Version at Acts 28:6, as well as ours. Your version deliberately capitalized it, to promote the doctrine of Jesus being God sir. You even stated that as such, admitting that one of them was altered.

Lets continue sir, what else do you have? Lets take one at a time.

The entire JW argument about whether the Word id God or "a god" falls flat on its face, contextually.

We are told in Scripture that ALL gods other than THE God are false gods.
God Himself tells us that there is NO OTHER gods besides Him (Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3, 23:13).
So, to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” is a failure to recognize this context - and a complete contradiction of Scripture.

Finally – JWs are dishonest about the Greek word for God and attempt to absolutize it as one, single definition. Like English, Koine Greek employs multiple meanings and uses for a single word.

However, as we read from Strong’s Greek Lexicon, “a god” is simply ONE interpretation.
Theos (τηεοσ)
Morphology: N-AM-S Strong's: 2316 Transliterated: theon Root: θεός
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity 3) spoken of the only and true God 3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges

In Rom. 1:18 – Theos is translated as “OF God”.
Again – ONE word, many uses.

A similar example can be found in James 2. The SAME root word that is used for Faith (pistis) is also used for “believe” (pisteuo) – even though James is explaining that they are NOT the same thing.

It all comes down to a failure to understand HOW languages work.

TI think we both know your second point was not really a point correct? Unless you are of the extremely few people that believe the apostles ate the literal flesh and drank the blood of Jesus, then you know they ate unleavened bread and drank wine that represented Jesus' flesh and blood.

Extremely FEW people??

This is absoulte nonsense, as lliterally BILLIONS of people throughout the centuries have believed this Biblical truth.
Not ONLY waas this belief attested to UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers - it is referred to in the Catechism as, "The source and summite of the Christian life" (CCC 1324).

If you want to have a serious and charitable discussion - then let's have one.
However - leave the dishonesty and the fairy tales at the door.

"Extremely few", indeed . . .

 

[Jim B]

Was not the author of the Bible Jehovah sir? Did not He use His witnesses to pen His words? Was not those words for His people Jim? Yes I fully realize that.

The Jehovah's Witness denomination is an organization that denied the full deity of Jesus Christ. John 1:1, NWT: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Every other translation says "the Word was God".

 

[tigger 2]

tigger,

In a Greek sentence, how do you know which is the nominative subject and the predicate nominative? We need to remember that a general principle is that word order does not affect translation. Declensions and conjugations of words determine the translation.

Oz

If you would read my research, you would see that Colwell's rule is misused by trinitarians at John 1:1c. His examples are not truly parallel (usually using prepositional [usually genitive]- modifiers) to Jn 1:1c. Trinitarians who eagerly grasped Colwell's Rule after 1933, have for the most part rejected it and moved on to a new theory which is still based on word order (and is still wrong).

As for the predicate noun, it is, as in English, normally indefinite. (Also explained in my studies.) Therefore, when it is actually a definite predicate noun, John used the article with it: John 1:21; 15:1b.

We know from context or from John's normal use which is the predicate noun.

 

[The Disciple John]

Every other translation says "the Word was God".

Not quite.
Greek scholar Edgar Johnson Goodspeed along with John Merlin Powis Smith - a biblical scolar, and Greek tutor - produced a translation in 1935, which renders John 1:1 "...and the Word was divine”

Before that translation, there is The New Testament (1880). John 1:1 ...and the word was a god
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading) - one of the earliest interlinear Greek-English New Testaments, by Benjamin Wilson (1864). John 1:1 ...and the word was a god

Subsequent to these, there are three German translations - 1975, 1978, 1979, that renders John 1:1 ...and a god was the Word or Logos.

Why do you object to that rendering though? I don't recall if you did say. I might have missed it.

 

[DavidB]

The Jehovah's Witness denomination is an organization that denied the full deity of Jesus Christ. John 1:1, NWT: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Every other translation says "the Word was God".

In addition to Smith and Goodspeed consider these:

James Moffatt New Testament
"THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."

Robert Young - Concise Commentary Commentary on the Holy Bible
“AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ‘and a god (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word’ that is, he was existing and recognized as such.”

Though commonly said on the internet, it cannot accurately be said that the trinitarian translation of John 1:1c is unanimous.

 

[Davy]

What I meant by being raised 'a bad Catholic' is my parents, particularly my mother, was a hypocrite. She forced me to attend CCD to get the sacrements and go to church but she herself did not attend. This told mer her faith was normative and not truly important in her life. So, why should it be important to me? Just get the sacraments and be done with it.

Well, better that you're more in The Light now though. Nothing like God's Word for the hungry.

 

[Robert Gwin]

The entire JW argument about whether the Word id God or "a god" falls flat on its face, contextually.

We are told in Scripture that ALL gods other than THE God are false gods.
God Himself tells us that there is NO OTHER gods besides Him (Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3, 23:13).
So, to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” is a failure to recognize this context - and a complete contradiction of Scripture.

Finally – JWs are dishonest about the Greek word for God and attempt to absolutize it as one, single definition. Like English, Koine Greek employs multiple meanings and uses for a single word.

However, as we read from Strong’s Greek Lexicon, “a god” is simply ONE interpretation.
Theos (τηεοσ)
Morphology: N-AM-S Strong's: 2316 Transliterated: theon Root: θεός
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity 3) spoken of the only and true God 3a) refers to the things of God 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him 4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way 4a) God's representative or viceregent 4a1) of magistrates and judges

In Rom. 1:18 – Theos is translated as “OF God”.
Again – ONE word, many uses.

A similar example can be found in James 2. The SAME root word that is used for Faith (pistis) is also used for “believe” (pisteuo) – even though James is explaining that they are NOT the same thing.

It all comes down to a failure to understand HOW languages work.

Extremely FEW people??

This is absoulte nonsense, as lliterally BILLIONS of people throughout the centuries have believed this Biblical truth.
Not ONLY waas this belief attested to UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers - it is referred to in the Catechism as, "The source and summite of the Christian life" (CCC 1324).

If you want to have a serious and charitable discussion - then let's have one.
However - leave the dishonesty and the fairy tales at the door.

"Extremely few", indeed . . .

If that was the only verse in the Bible Bread I might agree with you, however it is not. The Bible is quite clear who is God, and Jesus made His name known to us. John 3:16 does not contradict Jn 1:1, clearly your translators deliberately altered it, and knew the proper way to translate it as they did so in other places in the Bible, and I gave you the best example of their deliberate manipulation. If you choose to accept Jesus as god that is your choice sir, as for me and my household we shall serve Jehovah.

Do you have any other examples where you feel the NWT falls short?

 

[Robert Gwin]

The Jehovah's Witness denomination is an organization that denied the full deity of Jesus Christ. John 1:1, NWT: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Every other translation says "the Word was God".

Might you explain why your chosen version translated it a god in Acts 28:6 Jim? Which one is correct?

 

[Pearl]

Which translation do you think is the best English translation?

To answer the original question: I like the New International Version or the New Living Translation. in my view they are the best of the rest.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If that was the only verse in the Bible Bread I might agree with you, however it is not. The Bible is quite clear who is God, and Jesus made His name known to us. John 3:16 does not contradict Jn 1:1, clearly your translators deliberately altered it, and knew the proper way to translate it as they did so in other places in the Bible, and I gave you the best example of their deliberate manipulation. If you choose to accept Jesus as god that is your choice sir, as for me and my household we shall serve Jehovah.

Do you have any other examples where you feel the NWT falls short?

Ummmmm, first of all - I never addressed John 3:16 as being "contradictory" to John 1:1.

I saud that to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” icompletely contradicts verses like Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3 and 23:13 - which you have NOT addressed. God is crystal clear that HE is the ONLY God - anbd that ALL other gods are FALSE gods.
To insinuated that Jesus is "a god" in John 1:1 makes Him a false god.

And, as I ponyed out in my last post - in Rom. 1:18 – "Theos" (τηεοσ) is translated as “OF God”.
This shows what complete nonsense it was for the translators of the NWT to absolutuzed this word John 1:1 as "a god".

I also showed you the definition of Theos (τηεοσ) from Stronfs Greek Lexicon and Concordance that illustrates that this word can be rendered as "a god", God, "Godhead", "The onbly and true God", "God the Father", "Christ", "Holy Spirit", etc.
The extremely unqualified and uneducated team of translators of the NWT absolutized the definition as "a god" - which is linguistic perversion.

As to "other" examples - let's wait until you address the the above-referenced verses first . . .

 

[tigger 2]

Ummmmm, first of all - I never addressed John 3:16 as being "contradictory" to John 1:1.

I saud that to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” icompletely contradicts verses like Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3 and 23:13 - which you have NOT addressed. God is crystal clear that HE is the ONLY God - anbd that ALL other gods are FALSE gods.
To insinuated that Jesus is "a god" in John 1:1 makes Him a false god.

And, as I ponyed out in my last post - in Rom. 1:18 – "Theos" (τηεοσ) is translated as “OF God”.
This shows what complete nonsense it was for the translators of the NWT to absolutuzed this word John 1:1 as "a god".

I also showed you the definition of Theos (τηεοσ) from Stronfs Greek Lexicon and Concordance that illustrates that this word can be rendered as "a god", God, "Godhead", "The onbly and true God", "God the Father", "Christ", "Holy Spirit", etc.
The extremely unqualified and uneducated team of translators of the NWT absolutized the definition as "a god" - which is linguistic perversion.

As to "other" examples - let's wait until you address the the above-referenced verses first . . .

..........................
Ordinarily I would try to ignore your ignorant posts. But perhaps this will be of value to you as well as to others here.

The word you 'ponyed out' in your above post as theos is, in reality, theou. And what does theou mean? Since it is a genitive noun it means "of god" or "of God." The article can be understood (or not) with genitives.

When written in Greek theos looks like this: θεὸς. That is, it begins with the Greek theta, followed by epsilon, followed by omicron, followed by the end form of sigma.

I understand that my study of John 1:1c is beyond your understanding, but if you would find someone to examine it, you would find that "a god" is, by far, the most probable meaning.

 

[Jim B]

..........................
Ordinarily I would try to ignore your ignorant posts. But perhaps this will be of value to you as well as to others here.

The word you 'ponyed out' in your above post as theos is, in reality, theou. And what does theou mean? Since it is a genitive noun it means "of god" or "of God." The article can be understood (or not) with genitives.

When written in Greek theos looks like this: θεὸς. That is, it begins with the Greek theta, followed by epsilon, followed by omicron, followed by the end form of sigma.

I understand that my study of John 1:1c is beyond your understanding, but if you would find someone to examine it, you would find that "a god" is, by far, the most probable meaning.

There are many expert translators who have commented on John 1:1c. They disagree with your statement that "you would find that "a god" is, by far, the most probable meaning." Why should you be believed? Are you a professional translator with an advanced degree who is/was on a translation committee? If not, what are your qualifications?

 

[MatthewG]

Hello to who asked the question,

Young’s Literal Translation is one of the best English translations in my opinion.

For Paraphrase I would choose New Living Translation as it is for people who have a hard time reading the thes and thous and what not.

 

[tigger 2]

There are many expert translators who have commented on John 1:1c. They disagree with your statement that "you would find that "a god" is, by far, the most probable meaning." Why should you be believed? Are you a professional translator with an advanced degree who is/was on a translation committee? If not, what are your qualifications?

My qualifications are that I have actually, deeply delved into John's use of all his "Colwell Constructions" for years before posting my studies. Other NT Grammarians have not done this. In fact, even many of those noted trinitarian NT Grammarians who do not accept the proper translation of John 1:1c have in their Grammars the keys to finding the truly parallel examples to be used in examining John's usage of all parallel examples, but do not use them for John 1:1c.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2011/06/definite-john-11.html (First, Longest, and most detailed by far)

 

[tigger 2]

John 1:1

(1) The New Testament in an Improved Version (Unitarian) says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

(2) The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) says: "and the Word was a god."

(3) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson (Christadelphian?) says in the interlinear section: "a god was the Word."

(4) The Four Gospels - A New Translation by Prof. Charles C. Torrey says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was god."

(5) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Siegfried Shultz says: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word."

(6) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Johannes Schneider says: "and godlike sort was the Logos [Word]."

(7) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jurgen Becker says: "and a god was the Logos."

Notice how these 7 different translations use the word "god" (or `godlike'), clearly differentiating between it and the only true God!

Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "a god was the Word". - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

"A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, `The Word was a god.' As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

11 The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects "a god" as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John's Gospel!

Highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, `the Word was a god,' but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that "context" will not allow such an interpretation! - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, (`New Covenant' section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: "You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: `the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘And a god was the Word.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132, Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.

John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.'" - p. 317, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965, published with Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in a footnote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

12 You see, in ancient times many of God's servants had no qualms about using the word "god" or "gods" for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young's Analytical Concordance in the section entitled "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":

"65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ...." - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Ummmmm, first of all - I never addressed John 3:16 as being "contradictory" to John 1:1.

I saud that to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” icompletely contradicts verses like Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3 and 23:13 - which you have NOT addressed. God is crystal clear that HE is the ONLY God - anbd that ALL other gods are FALSE gods.
To insinuated that Jesus is "a god" in John 1:1 makes Him a false god.

And, as I ponyed out in my last post - in Rom. 1:18 – "Theos" (τηεοσ) is translated as “OF God”.
This shows what complete nonsense it was for the translators of the NWT to absolutuzed this word John 1:1 as "a god".

I also showed you the definition of Theos (τηεοσ) from Stronfs Greek Lexicon and Concordance that illustrates that this word can be rendered as "a god", God, "Godhead", "The onbly and true God", "God the Father", "Christ", "Holy Spirit", etc.
The extremely unqualified and uneducated team of translators of the NWT absolutized the definition as "a god" - which is linguistic perversion.

As to "other" examples - let's wait until you address the the above-referenced verses first . . .

 

[Robert Gwin]

Ummmmm, first of all - I never addressed John 3:16 as being "contradictory" to John 1:1.

I saud that to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” icompletely contradicts verses like Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3 and 23:13 - which you have NOT addressed. God is crystal clear that HE is the ONLY God - anbd that ALL other gods are FALSE gods.
To insinuated that Jesus is "a god" in John 1:1 makes Him a false god.

And, as I ponyed out in my last post - in Rom. 1:18 – "Theos" (τηεοσ) is translated as “OF God”.
This shows what complete nonsense it was for the translators of the NWT to absolutuzed this word John 1:1 as "a god".

I also showed you the definition of Theos (τηεοσ) from Stronfs Greek Lexicon and Concordance that illustrates that this word can be rendered as "a god", God, "Godhead", "The onbly and true God", "God the Father", "Christ", "Holy Spirit", etc.
The extremely unqualified and uneducated team of translators of the NWT absolutized the definition as "a god" - which is linguistic perversion.

As to "other" examples - let's wait until you address the the above-referenced verses first . . .

I saud that to render John 1:1 as “a god” instead of “God” icompletely contradicts verses like Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:3 and 23:13 - which you have NOT addressed.

You say I did not reply, well I sure will now, who is mentioned at those three verses sir, Jesus? Yes John 3:16 contradicts Jn 1:1 in your version of the Bible, how could you even consider otherwise. The only way it wouldn't is if God sent Himself, and of course that is not what it said.

Take a look at the verses you posted:
(Isaiah 45:5) 5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me.. . .
(Exodus 20:2, 3) . . .“I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You must not have any other gods besides me.
(Exodus 23:13) . . .“You must be careful to do all that I have said to you, and you must not mention the names of other gods; they should not be heard on your lips.

Are those verses clear enough to show you who God is Bread, or will you say the version I quoted from is in error?

 

[BreadOfLife]

IYou say I did not reply, well I sure will now, who is mentioned at those three verses sir, Jesus? Yes John 3:16 contradicts Jn 1:1 in your version of the Bible, how could you even consider otherwise. The only way it wouldn't is if God sent Himself, and of course that is not what it said.

And there you have it.
Your objection is NOT basaed on language - as much as iut is based simply in your refusal to accept the Triune Godhead.

I can only present the fats.
I can't help you with your lack of faith . . .

Take a look at the verses you posted:
(Isaiah 45:5) 5 I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me.. . .
(Exodus 20:2, 3) . . .“I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You must not have any other gods besides me.
(Exodus 23:13) . . .“You must be careful to do all that I have said to you, and you must not mention the names of other gods; they should not be heard on your lips.

Are those verses clear enough to show you who God is Bread, or will you say the version I quoted from is in error?

NOT according to YOUR wooden, inflexible translationn of Theos.
According to YOU - ALL of these verses say, "A god".

As for "Jehovah" - that word isn't found in ANY language, It was an invention of the Spanish monk, Ramundo Martini, in ther Middle Ages, who was trying to renger the the Hebrew word for God, "YHVH" into a Latrin-based pronunciation..

 

[BreadOfLife]

..........................
Ordinarily I would try to ignore your ignorant posts. But perhaps this will be of value to you as well as to others here.

The word you 'ponyed out' in your above post as theos is, in reality, theou. And what does theou mean? Since it is a genitive noun it means "of god" or "of God." The article can be understood (or not) with genitives.

When written in Greek theos looks like this: θεὸς. That is, it begins with the Greek theta, followed by epsilon, followed by omicron, followed by the end form of sigma.

I understand that my study of John 1:1c is beyond your understanding, but if you would find someone to examine it, you would find that "a god" is, by far, the most probable meaning.

Sorry – but your entire point is moot because you failed to address the CONTEXTUAL problem you have with John 1:1 and verses like Isaiah 45:5, Exod. 20:2-3, 23:13, which tell us that there is only ONE God and there are to be NO OTHER gods besides Him.

So, contextually, we would have to accept that the NWT rendering would amount to, “In the beginning was the word and the word was with “a god” and the word was “a god” - which completely contradict the verses above.

How many gods DO you worship?